Not what you want on board one of a teams match...

[rogerclee]

I would always bid 5♦ here, if only because it seems too weird to have 9 tricks with diamonds as trumps, and never say the word diamond.

 

I don't think the simulation is at all reliable, and I think it would be very difficult to simulate.

 

But just for fun I did the IMPs too:

 

 

(12) 4♥=, 5♦-1, but 5♦= likely

(14) 4♥-2, 5♦-1

(15) 4♥-1, 5♦-1

(18) 4♥= but 4♥-1 possible; 5♦= on best play

(19) 4♥-1, 5♦=

(20) 4♥-1, 5♦=

 

Assuming opponents always double 5♦ and that we always obtain the best likely results for our sides (i.e. opponents don't make any spectacular leads or plays) I've got lose 9 for bidding 5♦, or lose 0.45 IMPS/board.

 

Inconclusive really, but I still don't think bidding is a "wtp"...

How did you IMP this (we are vul, they are not)? I thought your criteria were that 5D is always doubled and 4H is never doubled. I have:

 

12) win 15

14) lose 12

15) lose 11

18) win 15

19) win 12

20) win 12

 

Net: Lose 37 IMPs, or -1.85 IMPs/bd (Lose 19 IMPs, or -0.95 IMPs/bd if we are being generous)

 

Roger, I get

 

12) win 14

14) lose 7

15) lose 6

18) win 14

19) win 11

20) win 11

 

for a total of -31 when 5♦ is doubled every time it goes down.

 

If 5♦ is never doubled, we would score +49 IMPS over the same 20 boards by bidding 5♦.

You are right on 14+15, but I also said they would double when 5D makes; seems unfair to assume they will only double 5D when it's down.

[Fluffy]

thanks for the politeness and that, but no joke, I would bid 3♦ round before and didn't think it was close, I have no tool avaible to find the heart stopper starting with a double either, and a vul vs not 3♦ live bid opposite a partner who didn't act over 1♥ shows already a VERY good hand, my plan is to double 3/4♥ next wich will put me in a much better position, if 3♦ is passed out I don't think I would had done any better by doubling first.

 

Its maybe a style Issue, in the last 10 years I can count with my ingers the times where me or dad doubled first with a one suiter. The ones that happened above the 1 level had 11 sure tricks

[jdonn]

if 3♦ is passed out I don't think I would had done any better by doubling first.

Really?

[Fluffy]

I am making it, ain't I? :P

 

seriously, double then 3♦ over 2♠ would show a 3154 very strong rather than these. And on any other scenario it seems better to have been able to bid diamonds before.

[awm]

You are right on 14+15, but I also said they would double when 5D makes; seems unfair to assume they will only double 5D when it's down.

Fixing this and using the "generous" assumptions gets us back to my original result that bidding 5♦ lost 9 imps on 20 boards.

 

Again, I don't think this is particularly conclusive. Certainly the opponents might judge wrong sometimes and bid 5♥, or fail to double. And the set of hands where opener bids game (or where responder bids 2♥) is not exactly right.

 

However, I do think the following can be concluded:

 

(1) You're not going to actually make five diamonds very often.

(2) If the opponents make "double dummy" competitive decisions, bidding 5♦ is a big loser.

(3) Against real opponents I don't think this really tells you much, but the first two statements suggest that it is at least a close decision. It may depend on stylistic things (what is the range of the 2♥ raise for these opponents, how often do they jump to 4♥ "obstructively" rather than intending to make, how aggressive are they in competing vs. doubling at the five-level, etc).

[jdonn]

I still don't really believe statement 1 though I might have overestimated it myself. It's like Mike's 30 hands, frankly I don't see why I should believe it when to me it feels so untrue.

 

I believe 2 is definitely true but not the slightest bit relevant. I've said many time how incredibly awful many of the actions I regularly take would work out if my opponents were double dummy over them. It's just a really hard auction to double us when I could easily be sound for my bid, responder doesn't know the nature of opener's hand, and opener could be long in hearts and not be sure himself.

 

Think of the actual hand. We went for 800, but even opposite partner's actual hand,

- Diamonds were 0-5, so probably at least some wests would bid 5♥ on their diamond void before their partner would get to double.

- If diamonds were 1-4 then we lose 2 imps if they double and gain 6 if they don't, plus the chance an opponent could still make a bad 5♥ bid like RHO who knows he has nothing wasted in diamonds.

- If diamonds were 2-3 or 3-2 then we are even less likely to be doubled. While they might have been down in that case it's less likely given that they bid game to begin with, and clubs could still be not breaking as well.

- Partner had a yarb with a stiff diamond!